Does anybody have additional comments on the HDLC (SIOCDEVICE etc)?
A copy of my previous lkml message follows.
-- Krzysztof Halasa Network Administrator
Jeff Garzik <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> "SIOCDEVICE" as a constant is unacceptable, so it would need to be > SIOCWANDEVICE or something similar.
Well, I was probably under impression it should be used for Ethernet as well (see the Dec 2000 thread)... Now I think I know people using Ethernet (with full duplex over SM fibre) for WAN connections - so SIOCWANDEVICE is ok. Not sure about TR, though - anyone using it for WAN networking?
> SIOCETHTOOL, for example, is an ioctl which actually provides > sub-ioctls, so that is probably a good model to follow.
SIOCDEVICE^WSIOCWANDEVICE of course has sub-ioctls as well. It is obviously impossible without them.
I do _not_ want to fight any ETHTOOL vs SIOCDEVICE etc. battle here. What I want is creating the best interface for controlling network devices. Including Token Ring and Ethernet, unless there are valid reasons to do otherwise.
I think we should concentrate on the interface first, then I will patch the HDLC implementation.
If we're here... maybe we should really drop using the ifreq structure and _replace_ it with better one (variable-sized)? It can be done gradually, as both are quite compatible.-- Krzysztof Halasa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/